The Smart Vote

The Smart Vote

Advocates of same-sex "marriage" are known to reach for one of
the oldest arguments in the liberal arsenal - that a vote in favor
of their point of view is a "smart" vote, and a vote against it is
the mark of a knuckle-dragging reactionary.

Well, is it?

The question takes on added prominence as the House of
Representatives prepares to vote Thursday on a constitutional
amendment protect marriage as the institution of one man and one
woman. Congress must pass the amendment before it can be considered
by the states, where three-fourths of the nation's state
legislatures would have to approve it before it became law.

So what is the smart vote? Well, as is the case any time we're
considering big, important national questions, we have to answer
that question with this one: What are the goals? When we think of
what the American government's policy toward marriage should be, we
need first to establish what it is we want that policy to
encourage.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the goal of marriage
policy is the same as the goal for most other policies - to make
the lives of most Americans better. If that is the case, one need
only check out what the research says about the significance of
marriage. To get a quick snapshot, take a look at
the new database from the Heritage Foundation on marriage and
family issues.

Social-science experts here at Heritage have taken a long look
at the research to date on various households, particularly the
traditional family - one which consists of a man married to a woman
and living with their children. And the data is overwhelming. It
suggests that, at this fragile time in the history for families,
for faith and for other forces for good in society, this is no time
to experiment with the basic family form or with the institution of
marriage.

Those in Europe, and on a limited basis elsewhere, who have
undertaken such experiments, have found that granting same-sex
partnerships the status of marriage is not strengthening the
institution of marriage nor improving children's chances of growing
up with a married mother and father. Either way, the Heritage
research came at it from the other angle. What good comes from
standing up for the traditional family? What makes it worth
defending?

Let's remember our policy goals. The husbands in such families
are happier, less likely to endure depression, healthier, wealthier
and far more stable mentally. The wives are happier, healthier,
wealthier and less likely to experience both depression and
physical or mental abuse.

The children of such marriages - the future of our country -
grow up to earn more, learn more, live healthier, more active, more
outgoing, more happy lives than those in other family models. They
are less likely to become depressed, to repeat a grade in school,
to get in trouble with the law, alcohol or drugs or to fail in
their own relationships. Stability begets stability.

And again, if the question is: Which decision - for the
amendment or against the amendment to protect the institution of
marriage - will produce the most happiness among Americans, let's
consider all this data.

States are taking action to protect marriage in the meantime. In
two states - Missouri and Louisiana - voters already have approved
by huge margins ballot initiatives to protect marriage in their
constitutions. Eleven more will consider the same question in
November. One lesson we can learn from the abortion debate is that
having the courts decide will lead neither to true resolution of
the issue nor to consensus among the American people. Courts should
not be issuing policy edicts like this. The people should speak -
and they are doing so through their ballots.

I'm not telling the House how to vote on Thursday, though you
can. But I am saying that my view - that marriage should be limited
to the union of one man and one woman - doesn't make me a
Neanderthal. And even if you think it does, what's the harm in
letting the people - rather than courts that often come far from
a.) reflecting our views and b.) doing what's best for America -
decide?